Search results

This chapter aims to present the development of education in the South-East European (SEE) countries, which took place under strong influence of the European Union (EU) education policy. This is examined irrespective of the different relationships these countries have with the EU. Some of these are Member States, and others are candidate or partner countries. The chapter opens with the explanation of the concept of SEE, and it is processed with a discussion on the concept of Europeanization in the education field. The concept refers to the process of forming a common education policy in the EU. This is also transferred to non-EU European countries. The third subchapter synthetizes and evaluates the main characteristics and challenges of the education in the SEE countries from the perspective of common European policy goals.

This chapter provides an overview of the five main modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and designs – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

This chapter evaluates whether disclosures on global warming by companies from the European Union are more extensive than disclosures by Japanese and Canadian firms. The study is based on disclosures made on websites, annual reports, social, environmental and sustainability reports and on a questionnaire developed by the Carbon Disclosure Project by 282 of the largest firms from these countries. Content analysis is utilized to asses their disclosures. The results indicate that the EU firms make significantly less global warming disclosures than firms from Japan or Canada. We also find no relation between the changes in carbon emissions and global warming disclosures indicating that these disclosures do not truly reflect emission performance. These findings suggest that the EU requirements of reducing GHG pollution have not improved GHG disclosures. Regulatory disclosure requirements may be the answer to improve disclosures.

In the enlarged European Union (EU) with 25 members, the free movement of capital, coupled with the free movement of goods and services should be a major direct attraction for both intra-EU and external foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows. EU membership does not, however, lead to a linear increase in FDI inflows as many analysts suggest (ECE, 2001). With EU accession, the structure of FDI may change substantially (Hunya, 2000; Dyker, 2001). Activities based on the existence of closed domestic markets (e.g. food and beverages) and on cheap labour (e.g. assembly activities) might be reduced, or even closed down, giving way to more knowledge-intensive activities in the new EU member countries (Kalotay, 2004a). FDI in the new EU member countries is not yet on an uninterrupted growth path. In the pre-accession phase (1995–2003), the relative importance of new EU members in global FDI flows when compared to that of the “old” members of the EU, was actually shrinking. Thus, if new members want to use FDI as one channel for catching up, they have to reverse this trend and increase their inward FDI quite rapidly.

The European Union has pursued two contradictory policies over the last decade in response to the challenges of globalization. On the one hand, the EU has loosened borders to facilitate trade and make the EU more competitive globally. On the other hand, the EU has tightened borders to enhance its security, fearing the negative consequences of a globalized world. In this paper, I examine the effects of implementation of the EU's Schengen border regime, a set of rules governing external border control, on the post-communist countries and the difficulties that Schengen has posed for the governments in the region. I also discuss the EU's emerging European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), designed to address many of the concerns voiced by the Central and East European (CEE) officials regarding Schengen. An important element of ENP is to work across the EU external border to facilitate economic relations and develop joint institutions with non-members to create new cooperative borderlands.

Two images are frequently invoked with regard to the evolution of the EU. Certain scholars portray the organization as moving toward a new, post-modern, post-Westphalian entity comprising an increasingly borderless Europe. Other scholars view European integration as a process by which the EU is increasingly taking on the trappings and functions of the state to build a “Fortress Europe.” The discussion of Schengen and the eastern enlargement suggests a more complex reality than either of these two images in which borders are constantly shifting and whose functions are changing in response to the different challenges posed by globalization and internal developments. The EU's external borders will continue to change, both in terms of where they are located and how important these will be. Europe's ENP, with its emphasis on cross-border cooperation, is changing borders into borderlands, zones of cooperation and collaboration across a line on a map. Governance and the shaping of policy are increasingly taking place at multiple sites and with different kinds of actors, further transforming the importance of borders. Perhaps, a new vision of European integration is needed to capture the evolution of the EU.

This chapter provides an overview of five modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.

This study aims to establish the position of the European Union (EU-28) countries in the dynamics of international trade openness linkages and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) in correlation with the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, research and development (R&D) expenditures, innovation capability and information and communication technology (ICT) adoption.

In the panel data set, comparative analyses were applied to scatter diagrams, correlation and regression analyses and structural equation models using Eurostat and World Economic Forum (WEF) data for the EU-28 countries in the period 2008–2019.

The empirical results did not confirm the hypotheses that a positive correlation exists between GCI and trade openness indicators and between GDP per capita and GCI. The ICT adoption and innovation capability increase GCI, which affects GDP per capita.

The empirical results provide a better understanding of the importance of trade policies, particularly in terms of trade openness and trade shares of the EU-28 countries, as it could contribute to increasing the GCI of the EU-28 countries. Furthermore, the results of this study underline the importance of ICT adoption and innovation capability and the need for appropriate government policies that improve global competitiveness.

This study, through empirical analysis, demonstrates the existence of correlations between trade openness (exports as % of GDP, imports as % of GDP and export market shares as % of world trade), R&D expenditures, innovation capability, ICT adoption, GDP per capita and the GCI in the EU-28 countries. In addition, this study contributes managerial and policy-based implications on driving forces of global competitiveness.

Drawing from the entitativity theory, the purpose of this paper is to focus on the European Union (EU) as a superordinate entity and investigate the extent to which a “Made-in-EU” designation leads to superior/inferior brand evaluations and through them to higher/lower purchase intentions than different country-specific designations.

Prior literature and qualitative interviews with consumers are used to generate several propositions regarding the role of the EU as a brand origin. These are subsequently tested in a series of four experimental studies using a common design but different country-specific origins as stimuli.

While a “Made-in-EU” designation is interpreted as a quality signal, linking a brand to the EU fails to generate positive affective associations. Furthermore, the exact impact of a “Made-in-EU” brand designation very much depends on the standard of comparison, that is, the specific country against which the EU is evaluated.

Superordinate designations such as the EU can indeed represent distinct entities in consumers’ minds which strongly impact their perceptions and intended behavior.

Moving from a “home country” label to a “Made-in-EU” label is not advisable for owners of domestic brands. For foreign brands from EU countries with an unfavorable country image, adopting a “Made-in-EU” label is worth considering since it can strengthen quality perceptions. However, any quality advantage might be offset by weaker brand affect perceptions.

The concept of entitativity introduces a new conceptual lens in the context of origin research which – almost exclusively – has previously focused on the individual country as the unit of analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of immigration from European Neighborhood (EN) and new member states to the EU core countries over the period 2000-2010. Apart from income differentials, unemployment rates and other standard variables hypothesized to determine immigration, the paper focusses attention on welfare-chasing as well as measures to enforce immigration policy. Using a variant of the gravity model, the paper investigates whether tests of these hypotheses are robust with respect to spatial misspecification.

The determinants of migration from the European Neighborhood and new member states to the EU core countries is estimated using a spatial variant of the gravity model. The methodology is used for both multilateral and spatial flows. Gravity model estimations are presented for immigration into the EU core destinations using standard, non-spatial econometrics, as well as spatial econometrics for single and double-spatial dynamics.

Immigration to EU core countries varies directly with the change in social spending per head in the destination. This result stands out in all the models, both OLS and spatial. Immigrants are attracted by economic inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient. However, in this case it is the level that matters rather than its change. No evidence is found that the threat of apprehension at the destination deters migrants from the European Neighborhood and other countries.

The authors assume multilateralism is spatial. This means that everything else given, destinations are closer substitutes the nearer they are, and that immigration shocks are likely to be more correlated among origins the closer they are. This implicit assumption is restrictive because multilateralism is just spatial.

While immigration to EU core countries varies directly with the change in (not level of) social spending per head. If a given country becomes more benevolent it attracts more immigration. The results suggest that if during 2000-2010 social spending per capita grew by 1 percent, the immigration rate increased by between 1 and 2 percentage points relative to the number of foreign-born in 2000. This is a large demographic effect.

Uniquely, this paper does not assume immigration flows are independent and stresses their spatial and multilateral nature. A series of new non-spatial and spatial (single and double-spatial lag) models are used to empirically test hypotheses about the determinants of immigration to the EU core countries.